(Evolutionists Only Please) Is there anything about evolution you think is wrong?

[cupid dave]

Interesting topic.

Hmm. I wouldn't say I disagree with it, precisely*, but one thing I don't like to take for granted is that evolution is fundamentally the same on all scales. I guess it's part personal preference/gut feeling, part the early influence of Stephen Jay Gould, part thinking about the Cambrian explosion and early animal evolution in general. People always tell creationists that macroevolution is nothing more than lots of microevolution put together, but is that actually true? A related question, has the nature of variation changed over time?

*It feels like the more science I read and try to do, the less likely I am to have strong convictions about it. Reverse Dunning-Kruger effect?

What about hybridization?

Both modern genetic information and the Bible support the idea that when the sons of god, (the only men left today) entered in the mere daughters of Neanderthals, a new evolution was born that was the mighty men of those times.

 

[CabVet]

What about hybridization?

Both modern genetic information and the Bible support the idea that when the sons of god, (the only men left today) entered in the mere daughters of Neanderthals, a new evolution was born that was the mighty men of those times.

No, the Bible supports God creating man as it is today.

Science supports Neanderthals hybridizing with Homo sapiens. There is no "mighty man" or "new evolution" supported by science.

So, you are wrong on both sides.

 

[cupid dave]

No, the Bible supports God creating man as it is today.

Science supports Neanderthals hybridizing with Homo sapiens. There is no "mighty man" or "new evolution" supported by science.

So, you are wrong on both sides.

The bible does support man as the ever evolving Humanoids that first appeared as an ACT-OF-GOD when in the womb of an ape two chromosomes fused together.

This fusion of two of the apes 24 chromosome started the process that ended with modern man who has only 23 chromosomes.




Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name "Adam," (a species or kind) in the day when THEY were created.

 

[CabVet]

The bible does support man as the ever evolving Humanoids that first appeared as an ACT-OF-GOD when in the womb of an ape two chromosomes fused together.

This fusion of two of the apes 24 chromosome started the process that ended with modern man who has only 23 chromosomes.

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name "Adam," (a species or kind) in the day when THEY were created.

No, the Bible supports a man created in the image of God:

Gen 1:26. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

KJV So that AV doesn't say I am wrong . The them clearly refers to male and female, not an entire species. God's image (according to religious people) is not that of a hairy ape human ancestor , but of humans as they are today.

Amazing, re-reading this I sound like AV! Oh nooooeess... What is this Cupid nonsense making me do???

 

[cupid dave]

No, the Bible supports a man created in the image of God:

Gen 1:26. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

KJV So that AV doesn't say I am wrong . The them clearly refers to male and female, not an entire species. God's image (according to religious people) is not that of a hairy ape human ancestor , but of humans as they are today.

Amazing, re-reading this I sound like AV! Oh nooooeess... What is this Cupid nonsense making me do???

1) God's image is a spirit in man's mind because God is spirit.

2) The image is Truth which corresponds to the "I am" of all existence.

 

[cupid dave]

By definition, Reality and Truth correspond one-to-one, do they not?






[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]In accord with a direct literary criticism of what the bible says,...[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]LOGICAL SYLLOGISM:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]A) Jesus is Truth, (personified: [John 14:6]).[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]B) Truth must correspond congruently to Reality by definition.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]C) Then, Reality is congruent to Truth as Jesus is congruent to God. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Truth, congruent with Reality[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Reality is everything outside our head, and Truth is its reflection inside our head.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]. [/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Reality evolving: [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Ex 3:14 God said to Moshe, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, [I am/will be what I am/will be]," and added, "Here is what to say to the people of Isra'el: 'Ehyeh,' [I Am, or I Will Be What I Become], has sent me to you.'" [/FONT]

 

[Huram Abi]

That can be argued, especially when you define truth as "something inside our head."

You are talking about subjective truth, which is more appropriately called "perception."

Perception can never correspond with reality, though sometimes it can be nearly identical to certain facets of reality, but not reality as a whole.

 

[Naraoia]

What about hybridization?

What about it?